Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • ajnr

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Publication Preview--Ahead of Print
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
  • For Authors
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editors
    • American Society of Neuroradiology
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Podcasts
    • Subscribe on iTunes
    • Subscribe on Stitcher
  • More
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds
Review ArticleAdult Brain
Open Access

Current and Emerging Therapies in Multiple Sclerosis: Implications for the Radiologist, Part 1—Mechanisms, Efficacy, and Safety

C. McNamara, G. Sugrue, B. Murray and P.J. MacMahon
American Journal of Neuroradiology September 2017, 38 (9) 1664-1671; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A5147
C. McNamara
aFrom the Departments of Radiology (C.M., G.S., P.J.M.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for C. McNamara
G. Sugrue
aFrom the Departments of Radiology (C.M., G.S., P.J.M.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for G. Sugrue
B. Murray
bNeurology (B.M.), Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for B. Murray
P.J. MacMahon
aFrom the Departments of Radiology (C.M., G.S., P.J.M.)
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for P.J. MacMahon
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

SUMMARY: Imaging for the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with suspected or confirmed multiple sclerosis is a common scenario for many general radiologists and subspecialty neuroradiologists. The field of MS therapeutics has rapidly evolved with multiple new agents now being used in routine clinical practice. To provide an informed opinion in discussions concerning newer MS agents, radiologists must have a working understanding of the strengths and limitations of the various novel therapies. The role of imaging in MS has advanced beyond monitoring and surveillance of disease activity to include treatment complications. An understanding of the new generation of MS drugs in conjunction with the key role that MR imaging plays in the detection of disease progression, opportunistic infections, and drug-related adverse events is of vital importance to the radiologist and clinical physician alike. Radiologists are in a unique position to detect many of the described complications well in advance of clinical symptoms. Part 1 of this review outlines recent developments in the treatment of MS and discusses the published clinical data on the efficacy and safety of the currently approved and emerging therapies in this condition as they apply to the radiologist. Part 2 will cover pharmacovigilance and the role the neuroradiologist plays in monitoring patients for signs of opportunistic infection and/or disease progression.

ABBREVIATIONS:

IFNβ
interferon β
NTZ
natalizumab
PML
progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
RRMS
relapsing-remitting MS

Multiple sclerosis is an idiopathic chronic inflammatory demyelinating disease of the central nervous system. The median age of symptomatic onset is approximately 29 years, and the female-to-male ratio in this group approaches 3:1.1 The McDonald criteria were introduced in 2001 as guidelines to facilitate a timely and accurate diagnosis of MS.2 These criteria have resulted in an earlier diagnosis of this condition with a high degree of both specificity and sensitivity, allowing earlier medical intervention.3 In 2010, revisions to the McDonald criteria allowed, in some instances, a more rapid diagnosis of MS, with equivalent or improved specificity and/or sensitivity compared with past criteria and allowed the clarification and simplification of the diagnostic process with fewer MR imaging examinations required.3 Central to these guidelines is the use of MR imaging and the need to demonstrate the dissemination of neurologic lesions in both time and space. As a result, the radiologist plays an increasingly central role in the multidisciplinary team care of patients diagnosed with this disease.

During the past 10 years, there has been an evolution in the treatment of relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS), with a rapid increase in the number of disease-modifying therapies available (On-line Table). Since 2004, 7 new agents have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of the relapsing form of the disease, joining what had previously been the mainstay of MS treatments: interferon β (IFNβ) and glatiramer acetate.4

The radiologist has a pivotal role in the diagnosis of MS, along with monitoring and identifying complications associated with these latest treatments. Part 1 of this review details recent developments in the treatment of MS and discusses the published clinical data on the efficacy and safety of the currently approved and emerging therapies in this condition as they apply to the radiologist. Part 2 focuses on the role of the neuroradiologist in monitoring patients being treated with these medications, which includes observation for treatment complications and signs of disease progression.

Currently Approved Agents: First-Line Therapies

Interferon β.

Interferon β is based on a naturally occurring polypeptide predominantly produced by fibroblasts. Its anti-inflammatory effects are largely believed to result from the inhibition of T-lymphocyte proliferation.5 It is administered by intramuscular or subcutaneous injection. Phase III trials of all the IFNβ preparations have reduced the annualized relapse rate by about 30%, reduced the progression of disability in RRMS, and reduced visible MR imaging disease activity.6⇓–8 Most patients treated with IFNβ (50%–75%) experience flulike symptoms, which usually resolve within 24 hours. Liver enzymes may become elevated, and bone marrow function may be depressed, which warrants periodic surveillance of liver function and blood counts before starting therapy and every 6 months thereafter.9⇓–11 Isolated cases of severe injection-site reactions involving infection or necrosis and severe cases of acute liver failure and pancreatitis have been reported.5

Glatiramer Acetate.

Glatiramer acetate is a pool of synthetic peptides with an amino acid composition similar to that of myelin basic protein and has widespread effects on the innate and adaptive immune systems.12 It is an immunomodulatory agent that does not affect the number of circulating lymphocytes but rather switches lymphocyte polarization from a proinflammatory TH1 to an anti-inflammatory TH2 profile.13 Glatiramer acetate is administered by subcutaneous injection. Glatiramer acetate treatment trials in RRMS have shown a significant reduction in the annualized relapse rate (29%) and a reduction in gadolinium-enhancing MR imaging activity.14,15 Glatiramer acetate is usually well-tolerated, but most patients (65%) experience injection-site reactions (pain, erythema, swelling, and pruritus). About 15% report a transient self-limited systemic reaction (immediately after injection) of facial flushing and chest tightness, accompanied at times by palpitations, anxiety, and dyspnea. Other reported adverse events include lymphadenopathy and lipoatrophy.6,15,16

Teriflunomide.

Teriflunomide (Aubagio), the active metabolite of leflunomide (an antirheumatic drug), is an oral disease-modifying therapy for RRMS, which was approved by the FDA in September 2012.17 Teriflunomide reduces T- and B-cell activation, proliferation, and function in response to autoantigens by inhibiting a key mitochondrial enzyme involved in DNA replication. Teriflunomide significantly reduces relapse rates, disability progression, and MR imaging evidence of disease activity, compared with a placebo.18 It showed a 31% reduction in the annualized relapse rate and a 30% reduction in disability compared with a placebo.19 On MR imaging, teriflunomide was superior to a placebo in reducing the total lesion volume and the number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions.18 While no radiologic-specific adverse events have been reported to date with teriflunomide, the most common clinical and biochemical adverse events include headache, diarrhea, fatigue, elevated alanine aminotransferase levels, nausea, hair thinning, influenza, and urinary tract infections.20

Dimethyl Fumarate.

Dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera) is an orally administered immunomodulatory agent with anti-inflammatory properties, and its mechanism of action in MS is only partially understood.5 Two Phase III trials of RRMS showed that dimethyl fumarate, compared with a placebo, reduced the annualized relapse rate by 44%–53%, the rate of disability progression by 22%–32%, and the number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions by about 75%–94%.21,22 Common adverse events included flushing, nausea, diarrhea and abdominal pain, neutropenia, and elevated liver function test results.21,22 Recently, a case of fatal progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) was reported in a 54-year-old woman with MS who was treated with dimethyl fumarate.23 Furthermore, 4 cases of PML have previously been described in patients with psoriasis who had received Fumaderm (related fumaric acid esters have been used in Europe since 1994 for the treatment of psoriasis).24 Prolonged severe lymphopenia (<500 cells per cubic millimeter) that persists for >6 months has been suggested as a risk factor for PML in this patient cohort. Thus, Torkildsen et al5 have recommended that in patients with persistent lymphopenia who are John Cunningham virus–positive, dimethyl fumarate treatment should be terminated.

Currently Approved Agents: Second-Line Therapies

Fingolimod.

Fingolimod (Gilenya), a sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulator, was the first oral disease-modifying therapy to be approved for the treatment of RRMS and is administered as a capsule taken once daily.25 Fingolimod antagonizes the sphingosine 1-phosphate receptors on lymphocytes, inhibiting egression of lymphocytes from the lymph nodes and thereby preventing entry of lymphocytes into the blood and their subsequent infiltration into the CNS.26 A 2010 study published by Cohen et al27 demonstrated the superior efficacy of oral fingolimod with respect to relapse rates and MR imaging outcomes in patients with MS, compared with intramuscular IFNβ. In 2012, 2 different neurologic complications of fingolimod treatment came to light. Visser et al28 reported that MS plaques paradoxically worsened after fingolimod treatment in 3 patients who started fingolimod 3–4 months after stopping another second-line therapy, natalizumab (NTZ). Furthermore, a woman who developed tumefactive MS lesions 6 months after starting fingolimod, without previously receiving NTZ, was described.28

A second complication was the development of herpes zoster encephalitis after commencement of fingolimod. Cohen et al29 described 2 fatal cases of herpes encephalitis in 2 patients on fingolimod therapy. Recent studies have shown that the overall rates of varicella zoster infections in clinical trials were low with fingolimod but higher than in placebo recipients (11 versus 6 per 1000 patient-years).30

Natalizumab.

The migration of lymphocytes across the blood-brain barrier is an important step in the creation of inflammatory lesions in MS, with the presence of leukocytes within the cerebral perivascular spaces deemed a pathologic hallmark.31 Natalizumab (NTZ, Tysabri) is a monoclonal antibody administered intravenously that binds to proteins on the surface of lymphocytes and inhibits binding of the cell to the luminal surface of blood vessel walls.32 On MR imaging, NTZ has demonstrated a reduction in the development of new gadolinium-enhancing lesions,33 and a significant reduction in the conversion of gadolinium-enhancing lesions to T1-hypointense lesions.34,35 This reduction in lesion formation was greater than the previous reduction of 50%–80% and 30% reported with IFNβ and glatiramer acetate, respectively.14,36 Even within 2 months of treatment, NTZ has been associated with a >90% reduction in new MR imaging gadolinium-enhancing lesions compared with a placebo.32 Clinically, patients treated with NTZ have significantly fewer clinical relapses, and it is currently the only disease-modifying therapy to actually improve the Expanded Disability Status Scale in select patients.37

In 2005, NTZ was withdrawn from the market as a result of the potentially lethal adverse effect of PML occurring in 3 separately reported patients.38⇓–40 PML results from an opportunistic infection of the oligodendrocytes caused by the reactivation and replication of the John Cunningham polyomavirus.41 As of March 4, 2016, 635 cases of PML in patients treated with NTZ have been reported.42 Despite a widespread understanding of the major risk factors for PML, the overall rate of NTZ-associated PML has nearly doubled between 2012 and 2015.43 The imaging features of PML are discussed in the Part 2 of this review.

Alemtuzumab.

Alemtuzumab (Lemtrada) is a monoclonal antibody that effects circulating T- and B-lymphocytes, leading to alterations in the number and functions of lymphocyte subsets.44 Alemtuzumab received FDA approval in the treatment of RRMS in November 2014. It is administered intravenously during 2 treatment courses for a total of 8 days and is associated with infusion reactions in essentially all treated patients. In its Phase III trials, alemtuzumab, compared with IFNβ given subcutaneously, reduced the annualized relapse rate by 49%–55%, the rate of disability progression by 30%–42%, and the number of gadolinium-enhancing lesions by 61%–63%.44,45 Tuohy et al46 reported secondary autoimmunity as the most frequently reported adverse event posttreatment. Such conditions included thyroid disorders (41% of 86 patients treated) most commonly, followed by immune thrombocytopenic purpura (3.5%) and, rarely, nephropathies, namely Goodpasturs syndrome (<1%).46 Thyroid disorders included hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, thyroiditis, and rarely goiter formation. Most cases occurred within 2 years of the last infusion.45 On the basis of the risk of autoimmune-mediated conditions, monthly blood and urine analyses are recommended for 4 years after the last dose of alemtuzumab.5

Mitoxantrone.

Mitoxantrone is an anthracenedione chemotherapeutic agent that inhibits T-cell activation and reduces proliferation of B- and T-cells.19 Limited efficacy data are available, but controlled studies of patients with highly active RRMS have shown significant efficacy of the treatment, as shown by a 60%–70% reduction in the relapse rate (compared with placebo or IV steroids) and reduced disability progression and MR imaging evidence of disease activity.5,47,48 Mitoxantrone is currently the only agent approved to treat secondary-progressive multiple sclerosis.49 Adverse events such as transient nausea, fatigue, mild hair loss (for days to a week), and menstrual disturbances are frequent (60%–70%).49 Additional adverse events are urinary tract infection (about 30%) and elevated liver enzymes and leukopenia (about 15%–20%). Although not in the Phase III trial, lethal congestive heart failure and therapy-related leukemia have been reported in treated patients, even years after treatment ends.50,51 Due to this potential cardiotoxicity, echocardiograms should be performed before, during, and after treatment. Mitoxantrone is teratogenic and is absolutely contraindicated in pregnancy. The use of mitoxantrone has rapidly decreased due to the risk of severe complications and the increasing number of alternative highly effective and less toxic treatment options.5

Future Therapeutic Directions

Monoclonal Antibodies.

Several other monoclonal antibodies against various lymphocyte surface markers are currently being investigated in the treatment of MS.4 Daclizumab, an antibody against CD25+ T-cells, is presently in late-stage clinical trials.52 Ocrelizumab53 and ofatumumab,54 monoclonal antibodies directed against the CD20 surface marker on B-cells, have been designed to minimize infusion-related reactions and are currently under investigation for various forms of MS. Rituximab, a human-mouse chimeric monoclonal antibody against CD20, has also been used off-label for a small group of patients who did not respond to the approved second-line treatments.55

Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.

There are published reports of >600 bone marrow–based transplants performed primarily for the treatment of MS.56 Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation appears to be most beneficial for patients with highly active MS who are progressing and who are refractory to conventional MS therapies.56,57 It is too early, however, to recommend a more widespread use of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation until more data from randomized controlled trials are available. Currently, there is at least 1 Phase III trial addressing this issue.57

Role of the Radiologist in MS Surveillance and Pharmacovigilance

Standardized Imaging.

MR imaging is the most sensitive tool currently available for monitoring inflammatory disease activity in MS. Clinical assessments far underestimate disease activity and burden compared with MR imaging.58 The challenge with using MR imaging as a surrogate for clinical outcomes is the lack of standardization and the variability in the interpretation of findings.58

The use of MR imaging in the routine follow-up of patients with MS is less straightforward than its use in the diagnostic process, owing largely to the experimental nature of many of the techniques that have been used to measure disease progression.59 Although follow-up MR imaging studies should be as consistent as possible with baseline or reference scans, fewer sequences are necessary than have been recommended for the initial diagnosis of MS and can be completed in 20–25 minutes.59,60 Often follow-up imaging can be tailored on the basis of the specific indication. For example, to assess treatment efficacy, FLAIR and T2-weighted spin-echo sequences should be used, whereas DWI, and SWI if available, should also be included for patients at risk of PML.58,59,61,62

Gadolinium has routinely been administered in many centers as part of their MS follow-up imaging protocol. Gadolinium-enhancing lesions are considered a marker of blood-brain barrier disruption, which has been associated with acute inflammation in patients with MS.58,63 Contrast-enhancing lesions are also typically easier to identify than new and/or enlarged T2 hyperintense lesions, and the process is also less dependent on technical factors such as scan repositioning. Furthermore, some new T2 hyperintense lesions are only detected after being identified as new enhancing lesions, owing to their small size or location in areas with confluent lesions.64 Interobserver accuracy is also significantly better when looking for gadolinium-enhancing lesions rather than new T2-lesions. A 2013 study by Erbayat Altay et al65 found that concordance correlation was high (0.8–0.96) for gadolinium-positive lesions, intermediate (0.6–0.8) for new T2 lesions, and very poor (0.0–0.14) for T2 enlarging lesions.

On the other hand, recognition of disease activity cannot rely exclusively on enhancing lesions. New inflammatory lesions take up gadolinium for approximately 3–4 weeks after their development, and the recommended interval between baseline and follow-up scans is typically 6 months.66 Therefore, although enhancing lesions are useful, they are not sufficiently sensitive to act as sole measures of disease activity.59 Recent studies have suggested that gadolinium-based contrast agents can accumulate in the brains of patients who have undergone multiple contrast-enhanced MR imaging studies.67 The most recent guidelines recommend that clinicians carefully evaluate the necessity of gadolinium use and limit it only to those cases in which the additional information provided is clinically significant.68,69 In light of these studies and the transient nature of enhancing lesions, contrast administration for patients undergoing surveillance MR imaging is not routinely performed at our institution unless there is an unexpected change of clinical status or a high clinical suspicion for relapse of disease.

Standardized patient head positioning and image acquisition, ideally with the same field strength, and access to prior MR imaging are critical for the accurate assessment of changes in lesion size and number with time.62 All scans should be obtained at field strengths of at least 1.5T. Higher field strengths, for example 3T, have the advantage of detecting a higher lesion load compared with 1.5T imaging.70 Imaging findings should not be taken out of clinical context. A study performed by Neema et al71 demonstrated that in healthy subjects, the total number and volume of discrete FLAIR hyperintense foci of age-related and incidental hyperintensities were nearly double on 3T versus 1.5T. In our practice, when comparing 3T imaging with prior 1.5T imaging, we are careful to only declare lesions as new if they are of a size and signal intensity that would have been visible if present on prior 1.5T imaging.

In our institution, MR imaging in suspected or known MS is performed using a 3T MR imaging system (Magnetom Skyra; Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) with acquisition parameters outlined in the Table. We use a guideline-based58,60,62,72 standardized diagnostic MS brain MR imaging protocol. For brain imaging, we always include axial 2D T2 TSE, 2D axial and sagittal FLAIR, and 3D pre- and post-contrast-enhanced T1 sequences. Additional sequences may include axial diffusion-weighted imaging and SWI, depending on clinical circumstances. For brain MR imaging surveillance, we do not routinely acquire contrast-enhanced T1 imaging. Our standardized diagnostic and surveillance cervical spinal cord MR imaging protocol always includes sagittal T2 TSE and axial T2 gradient-echo sequences. Optional sequences in the cervical spine include an additional T2-weighted sagittal sequence (eg, STIR and pre- and postcontrast T1 imaging in the sagittal and axial planes). Gadolinium is administered (single dose, 0.1 mmol/kg body weight) with a minimum 5-minute delay before postgadolinium T1 sequence acquisition.73 A further dose of gadolinium is not administered for MR imaging of the cervical spine, provided it immediately follows the contrast-enhanced brain MR imaging study.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Summary of imaging parameters

While MR imaging is a powerful noninvasive tool routinely used in the diagnosis and monitoring of MS, certain limitations of conventional MR images exist. FLAIR is one of the most sensitive techniques for visualization of supratentorial white matter lesions74,75; however, it is less sensitive than 2D T2 TSE in detecting posterior fossa lesions.75,76 This difference can be compensated for by using FLAIR at a higher strength magnetic field (3T) and/or with a 3D T2 FLAIR sequence, but T2 TSE remains slightly more sensitive in the detection of infratentorial lesions.77⇓–79 MS protocols should thus include a T2 TSE sequence, which should be specifically examined when assessing the infratentorial brain.

A second pitfall of routine brain MR imaging sequences is the difficulty in detection of gray matter MS lesions.80 White matter lesions are readily detected on standard MR imaging protocols; however, most cortical gray matter plaques are not. Cortical gray matter lesions are common in MS81 and are associated with physical disability and cognitive impairment.82,83 The difficulty in the detection of cortical gray matter lesions is mainly due to their small size84 but also due to the lower degree of inflammation associated with cortical lesions, the lower amount of myelin in the cortex compared with white matter, and partial volume artifacts from the adjacent CSF and white matter.85 Although not routinely available, ultra-high-field MR imaging (for example, 7T) has significantly improved the detection of gray matter cortical lesions.86 Furthermore, advances in pulse sequences, including double inversion recovery87,88 or phase-sensitive inversion recovery,89 are recently developed techniques to overcome this obstacle, which may become more widespread in time.

Third, MR spinal cord imaging is more challenging than brain MR imaging90 because the spinal cord is long, thin, and mobile. Imaging is made more difficult by ghosting (from breathing and pulsation of CSF and blood) and truncation artifacts.91 Poor histopathologic correlation between T2 imaging and MS-associated pathologic spinal cord change is well-described.92,93 Some authors recommend 2 sets of sagittal images to improve confidence in lesion detection.90,94 Sagittal sequences could include T2, proton density, STIR, or T1-weighted inversion recovery with phase-sensitive inversion recovery. In our experience, axial imaging is a much more reliable and sensitive technique in the detection of small plaques that often have a more lateral location in the cord (where volume-averaging artifacts are more common on sagittal sequences). We routinely acquire axial imaging through the entire cervical cord (rather than acquire a second sagittal sequence) and more targeted axial imaging in the thoracic cord and conus if potential lesions are seen on sagittal imaging.

Imaging the Brain versus the Spinal Cord

Focal abnormalities in the spinal cord are present in most patients with MS, affecting the cervical region more frequently than the thoracic and lumbar regions.95 MR imaging of the spinal cord is more challenging than brain MR imaging for reasons outlined above. These inherent features make it difficult to image subtle pathologic changes and to ensure comparability in follow-up examinations. Sagittal T2-weighted MR imaging can demonstrate larger lesions and should always be examined, but axial T2-weighted imaging is the most accurate and useful in detecting the commonly small peripheral lesions.96

Although newer imaging modalities have improved the detection of spinal cord lesions in MS,95 conventional MR imaging still lacks the necessary histopathologic specificity.97 Recent research has been focused on quantitative techniques such as the measurement of spinal cord atrophy. Spinal cord atrophy correlates with clinical disability,98⇓–100 and its association with disability is stronger than with focal lesion load.101 Quantification of spinal cord volume or cross-sectional area with MR imaging may be a potential marker for monitoring the disease course or treatment effectiveness in the future.

Brain imaging is still considered a more sensitive surveillance tool than spinal cord imaging for longitudinal monitoring of patients with MS.59 Brain imaging is more likely to identify subclinical inflammation, whereas inflammation affecting the spinal cord is more likely to be symptomatic.102 Several studies have shown that MR imaging of the spinal cord is less sensitive than brain MR imaging for detecting disease activity, particularly with regard to contrast-enhancing lesions, relating mostly to image artifacts associated with vascular and CSF pulsation. Routine spinal imaging is therefore not currently recommended as part of MR imaging surveillance schedules.103,104 MR imaging of the spinal cord may be indicated when there is significant clinical worsening with few changes on brain MR imaging or to rule out an alternative cause of progressive myelopathy, such as cervical spondylosis or a tumor. Routine follow-up with spinal cord imaging may be useful in patients with known spinal cord disease, in rare cases of recurrent transverse myelitis to assess response to therapy, or in new disease activity.58

Pharmacovigilance on Disease-Modifying Therapy and Frequency of Surveillance

Several guidelines have attempted to define the indications for and frequency of serial MR imaging in patients with an established diagnosis of MS.62,105,106

Follow-up MR imaging should be performed on at least an annual basis in patients with MS, especially for the first 2 or 3 years after starting therapy. However, certain patients at risk of serious treatment-related adverse events may need to be monitored more frequently, for example, every 3–4 months.59 A 2015 publication by the Magnetic Resonance Imaging in MS Consortium recommends that patients be evaluated with MR imaging after each unexpected clinical presentation whether typical or atypical of MS.59

Since the approval of the most recent generation of MS therapeutics, the importance of the role of MR imaging in MS drug surveillance is increasing. The aims of MR imaging drug surveillance include detection of unexpected MS disease activity, paradoxical reactions (eg, tumefactive demyelinating lesions), comorbidities (eg, vascular, neoplastic), and adverse effects such as PML and other opportunistic infections.107,108 The importance of strict pharmacovigilance has been recognized for many years, but it has gained additional clinical relevance with the potential for a broader spectrum of adverse findings than with earlier therapies.109

Part 2 of this review will discuss the recommended frequency of MR imaging for patients, depending on their treatment regimen and their unique risk profile. Further, it will focus on the imaging features that are important for neuroradiologists to be aware of when interpreting images in patients being treated with the most recent MS medications. The second part of this review will also examine the various methods for assessing the radiologic response to MS therapies. Finally, it covers future areas and technologies that may make the accomplishment of the above tasks more reliable and efficient.

Indicates open access to non-subscribers at www.ajnr.org

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Orton SM,
    2. Herrera BM,
    3. Yee IM, et al
    ; Canadian Collaborative Study Group. Sex ratio of multiple sclerosis in Canada: a longitudinal study. Lancet Neurol 2006;5:932–36 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(06)70581-6 pmid:17052660
    CrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. McDonald WI,
    2. Compston A,
    3. Edan G, et al
    . Recommended diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines from the International Panel on the Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis. Ann Neurol 2001;50:121–27 doi:10.1002/ana.1032 pmid:11456302
    CrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Polman CH,
    2. Reingold SC,
    3. Banwell B, et al
    . Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2010 revisions to the McDonald criteria. Ann Neurol 2011;69:292–302 doi:10.1002/ana.22366 pmid:21387374
    CrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Straus Farber R,
    2. Harel A,
    3. Lublin F
    . Novel agents for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis. Annu Rev Med. 2016;67:309–21 doi:10.1146/annurev-med-052814-023415 pmid:26394285
    CrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Torkildsen Ø,
    2. Myhr KM,
    3. Bø L
    . Disease-modifying treatments for multiple sclerosis: a review of approved medications. Eur J Neurol 2016;23(suppl 1):18–27 doi:10.1111/ene.12883 pmid:26563094
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    IFNB Multiple Sclerosis Study Group. Interferon beta-1b is effective in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, I: clinical results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Neurology 1993;43:655–61 doi:10.1212/WNL.43.4.655 pmid:8469318
    CrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Jacobs LD,
    2. Cookfair DL,
    3. Rudick RA, et al
    . Intramuscular interferon beta-1a for disease progression in relapsing multiple sclerosis: the Multiple Sclerosis Collaborative Research Group (MSCRG). Ann Neurol 1996;39:285–94 doi:10.1002/ana.410390304 pmid:8602746
    CrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Ebers GC
    ; PRISMS (Prevention of Relapses and Disability by Interferon β-1a Subcutaneously in Multiple Sclerosis) Study Group. Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study of interferon beta-1a in relapsing/remitting multiple sclerosis. Lancet 1998;352:1498–504 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(98)03334-0 pmid:9820297
    CrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Kappos L,
    2. Polman CH,
    3. Freedman MS, et al
    . Treatment with interferon beta-1b delays conversion to clinically definite and McDonald MS in patients with clinically isolated syndromes. Neurology 2006;67:1242–49 doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000237641.33768.8d pmid:16914693
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Jacobs LD,
    2. Beck RW,
    3. Simon JH, et al
    . Intramuscular interferon beta-1a therapy initiated during a first demyelinating event in multiple sclerosis: CHAMPS Study Group. N Engl J Med 2000;343:898–904 doi:10.1056/NEJM200009283431301 pmid:11006365
    CrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Comi G,
    2. Filippi M,
    3. Barkhof F, et al
    ; Early Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis Study Group. Effect of early interferon treatment on conversion to definite multiple sclerosis: a randomised study. Lancet 2001;357:1576–82 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04725-5 pmid:11377645
    CrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Weinstock-Guttman B
    . An update on new and emerging therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Am J Manag Care 2013;19(17 suppl):s343–54 pmid:24494635
    PubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Michel L,
    2. Larochelle C,
    3. Prat A
    . Update on treatments in multiple sclerosis. Presse Med 2015;44(4 pt 2):e137–51 doi:10.1016/j.lpm.2015.02.008 pmid:25813102
    CrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Comi G,
    2. Filippi M,
    3. Wolinsky JS
    . European/Canadian multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of the effects of glatiramer acetate on magnetic resonance imaging-measured disease activity and burden in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis: European/Canadian Glatiramer Acetate Study Group. Ann Neurol 2001;49:290–97 pmid:11261502
    CrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Johnson KP,
    2. Brooks BR,
    3. Cohen JAM, et al
    ; Copolymer 1 Multiple Sclerosis Study Group. Copolymer 1 reduces relapse rate and improves disability in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: results of a phase III multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Neurology 1995;45:1268–76 doi:10.1212/WNL.45.7.1268 pmid:7617181
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Wingerchuk DM,
    2. Carter JL
    . Multiple sclerosis: current and emerging disease-modifying therapies and treatment strategies. Mayo Clin Proc 2014;89:225–40 doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.11.002 pmid:24485135
    CrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. English C,
    2. Aloi JJ
    . New FDA-approved disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis. Clin Ther 2015;37:691–715 doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2015.03.001 pmid:25846320
    CrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. O'Connor P,
    2. Wolinsky JS,
    3. Confavreux C, et al
    ; TEMSO Trial Group. Randomized trial of oral teriflunomide for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 2011;365:1293–303 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1014656 pmid:21991951
    CrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Cross AH,
    2. Naismith RT
    . Established and novel disease-modifying treatments in multiple sclerosis. J Intern Med 2014;275:350–63 doi:10.1111/joim.12203 pmid:24444048
    CrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. He D,
    2. Xu Z,
    3. Dong S, et al
    . Teriflunomide for multiple sclerosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;12:CD009882 doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009882.pub2 pmid:23235682
    CrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Gold R,
    2. Kappos L,
    3. Arnold DL, et al
    ; DEFINE Study Investigators. Placebo-controlled phase 3 study of oral BG-12 for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 2012;367:1098–107 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1114287 pmid:22992073
    CrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Fox RJ,
    2. Miller DH,
    3. Phillips JT, et al
    ; CONFIRM Study Investigators. Placebo-controlled phase 3 study of oral BG-12 or glatiramer in multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 2012;367:1087–97 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1206328 pmid:22992072
    CrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Rosenkranz T,
    2. Novas M,
    3. Terborg C
    . PML in a patient with lymphocytopenia treated with dimethyl fumarate. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1476–78 doi:10.1056/NEJMc1415408 pmid:25853765
    CrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Sweetser MT,
    2. Dawson KT,
    3. Bozic C
    . Manufacturer's response to case reports of PML. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1659–61 doi:10.1056/NEJMc1300283 pmid:23614605
    CrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Izquierdo G,
    2. O'Connor P,
    3. Montalban X, et al
    . Five-year results from a phase 2 study of oral fingolimod in relapsing multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler J 2014;20:877–81 doi:10.1177/1352458513513059 pmid:24293455
    CrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Bourdette D,
    2. Gilden D
    . Fingolimod and multiple sclerosis: four cautionary tales. Neurology 2012;79:1942–43 doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182735edf pmid:23035058
    FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Cohen JA,
    2. Barkhof F,
    3. Comi G, et al
    ; TRANSFORMS Study Group. Oral fingolimod or intramuscular interferon for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 2010;362:402–15 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0907839 pmid:20089954
    CrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Visser F,
    2. Wattjes MP,
    3. Pouwels PJ, et al
    . Tumefactive multiple sclerosis lesions under fingolimod treatment. Neurology 2012;79:2000–03 doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182735cb3 pmid:23035065
    FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Cohen JA,
    2. Chun J
    . Mechanisms of fingolimod's efficacy and adverse effects in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 2011;69:759–77 doi:10.1002/ana.22426 pmid:21520239
    CrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Arvin AM,
    2. Wolinsky JS,
    3. Kappos L, et al
    . Varicella-zoster virus infections in patients treated with fingolimod: risk assessment and consensus recommendations for management. JAMA Neurol 2015;72:31–39 doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.3065 pmid:25419615
    CrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Lucchinetti C,
    2. Brück W,
    3. Parisi J, et al
    . Heterogeneity of multiple sclerosis lesions: implications for the pathogenesis of demyelination. Ann Neurol 2000;47:707–17 pmid:10852536
    CrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Polman CH,
    2. O'Connor PW,
    3. Havrdova E, et al
    ; AFFIRM Investigators. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 2006;354:899–910 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa044397 pmid:16510744
    CrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Miller DH,
    2. Khan OA,
    3. Sheremata WA, et al
    ; International Natalizumab Multiple Sclerosis Trial Group. A controlled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 2003;348:15–23 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa020696 pmid:12510038
    CrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Rudick R,
    2. Polman C,
    3. Clifford D, et al
    . Natalizumab: bench to bedside and beyond. JAMA Neurol 2013;70:172–82 doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2013.598 pmid:23128399
    CrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Dalton CM,
    2. Miszkiel KA,
    3. Barker GJ, et al
    . Effect of natalizumab on conversion of gadolinium enhancing lesions to T1 hypointense lesions in relapsing multiple sclerosis. J Neurol 2004;251:407–13 doi:10.1007/s00415-004-0332-4 pmid:15083284
    CrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Li DKB,
    2. Paty DW
    . Magnetic resonance imaging results of the PRISMS trial: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of interferon-β1a in relapsing- remitting multiple sclerosis: prevention of relapses and disability by interferon-beta1a subcutaneously in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1999;46:197–206 pmid:10443885
    CrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Belachew S,
    2. Phan-Ba R,
    3. Bartholomé E, et al
    . Natalizumab induces a rapid improvement of disability status and ambulation after failure of previous therapy in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Eur J Neurol 2011;18:240–45 doi:10.1111/j.1468-1331.2010.03112.x pmid:20561044
    CrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Kleinschmidt-DeMasters BK,
    2. Tyler KL
    . Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy complicating treatment with natalizumab and interferon beta-1a for multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 2005;353:369–74 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa051782 pmid:15947079
    CrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Langer-Gould A,
    2. Atlas SW,
    3. Green AJ, et al
    . Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in a patient treated with natalizumab. N Engl J Med 2005;353:375–81 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa051847 pmid:15947078
    CrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Van Assche G,
    2. Van Ranst M,
    3. Sciot R, et al
    . Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy after natalizumab therapy for Crohn's disease. N Engl J Med 2005;353:362–68 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa051586 pmid:15947080
    CrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Clifford DB,
    2. De Luca A,
    3. DeLuca A, et al
    . Natalizumab-associated progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in patients with multiple sclerosis: lessons from 28 cases. Lancet Neurol 2010;9:438–46 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(10)70028-4 pmid:20298967
    CrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    Biogen Idec MedInfo. https://medinfo.biogenidec.com/. Accessed June 15, 2016.
  43. 43.↵
    1. Berger JR,
    2. Fox RJ
    . Reassessing the risk of natalizumab-associated PML. J Neurovirol 2016;22:533–35 doi:10.1007/s13365-016-0427-6 pmid:26843383
    CrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Cohen JA,
    2. Coles AJ,
    3. Arnold DL, et al
    ; CARE-MS I investigators. Alemtuzumab versus interferon beta 1a as first-line treatment for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet 2012;380:1819–28 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61769-3 pmid:23122652
    CrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Coles AJ,
    2. Twyman CL,
    3. Arnold DL, et al
    ; CARE-MS II investigators. Alemtuzumab for patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis after disease-modifying therapy: a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet 2012;380:1829–39 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61768-1 pmid:23122650
    CrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Tuohy O,
    2. Costelloe L,
    3. Hill-Cawthorne G, et al
    . Alemtuzumab treatment of multiple sclerosis: long-term safety and efficacy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2015;86:208–15 doi:10.1136/jnnp-2014-307721 pmid:24849515
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  47. 47.↵
    1. Millefiorini E,
    2. Gasperini C,
    3. Pozzilli C, et al
    . Randomized placebo-controlled trial of mitoxantrone in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: 24-month clinical and MRI outcome. J Neurol 1997;244:153–59 doi:10.1007/s004150050066 pmid:9050955
    CrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Martinelli V,
    2. Radaelli M,
    3. Straffi L, et al
    ; Mitoxantrone in Multiple Sclerosis Study Group (MIMS). Mitoxantrone: benefits and risks in multiple sclerosis patients. Neurol Sci 2009;30(suppl 2):S167–70 doi:10.1007/s10072-009-0142-7 pmid:19882368
    CrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Hartung H-P,
    2. Gonsette R,
    3. König N, et al
    . Mitoxantrone in progressive multiple sclerosis: a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised, multicentre trial. Lancet 2002;360:2018–25 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)12023-X pmid:12504397
    CrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Martinelli V,
    2. Cocco E,
    3. Capra R, et al
    ; Italian Mitoxantrone Group. Acute myeloid leukemia in Italian patients with multiple sclerosis treated with mitoxantrone. Neurology 2011;77:1887–95 doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e318238ee00 pmid:22076543
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  51. 51.↵
    1. Ellis R,
    2. Brown S,
    3. Boggild M
    . Therapy-related acute leukaemia with mitoxantrone: four years on, what is the risk and can it be limited? Mult Scler 2015;21:642–45 doi:10.1177/1352458514541508 pmid:25013152
    CrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    1. Wynn D,
    2. Kaufman M,
    3. Montalban X, et al
    ; CHOICE investigators. Daclizumab in active relapsing multiple sclerosis (CHOICE study): a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on trial with interferon beta. Lancet Neurol 2010;9:381–90 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(10)70033-8 pmid:20163990
    CrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    1. Kappos L,
    2. Li D,
    3. Calabresi PA, et al
    . Ocrelizumab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a phase 2, randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial. Lancet 2011;378:1779–87 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61649-8 pmid:22047971
    CrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. Sorensen PS,
    2. Lisby S,
    3. Grove R, et al
    . Safety and efficacy of ofatumumab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a phase 2 study. Neurology 2014;82:573–81 doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000000125 pmid:24453078
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  55. 55.↵
    1. Hauser SL,
    2. Waubant E,
    3. Arnold DL, et al
    ; HERMES Trial Group. B-cell depletion with rituximab in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med 2005;358:676–88 pmid:18272891
    PubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Atkins HL,
    2. Freedman MS
    . Hematopoietic stem cell therapy for multiple sclerosis: top 10 lessons learned. Neurotherapeutics. 2013;10:68–76 doi:10.1007/s13311-012-0162-5 pmid:23192675
    CrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Burman J,
    2. Iacobaeus E,
    3. Svenningsson A, et al
    . Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for aggressive multiple sclerosis: the Swedish experience. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2014;85:1116–21 doi:10.1136/jnnp-2013-307207 pmid:24554104
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  58. 58.↵
    1. Traboulsee A,
    2. Simon JH,
    3. Stone L, et al
    . Revised recommendations of the Consortium of MS Centers Task Force for a standardized MRI protocol and clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and follow-up of multiple sclerosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2016;37:394–401 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4539 pmid:26564433
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  59. 59.↵
    1. Wattjes MP,
    2. Rovira À,
    3. Miller D, et al
    ; MAGNIMS study group. Evidence-based guidelines: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines on the use of MRI in multiple sclerosis—establishing disease prognosis and monitoring patients. Nat Rev Neurol 2015;11:597–606 doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2015.157 pmid:26369511
    CrossRefPubMed
  60. 60.↵
    1. Rovira À,
    2. Wattjes MP,
    3. Tintoré M, et al
    ; MAGNIMS study group. Evidence-based guidelines: MAGNIMS consensus guidelines on the use of MRI in multiple sclerosis—clinical implementation in the diagnostic process. Nat Rev Neurol 2015;11:471–82 doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2015.106 pmid:26149978
    CrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    1. Hodel J,
    2. Outteryck O,
    3. Dubron C, et al
    . Asymptomatic progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy associated with natalizumab: diagnostic precision with MR imaging. Radiology 2016;278:863–72 doi:10.1148/radiol.2015150673 pmid:26436861
    CrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    1. Simon JH,
    2. Li D,
    3. Traboulsee A, et al
    . Standardized MR imaging protocol for multiple sclerosis: Consortium of MS Centers consensus guidelines. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:455–61 pmid:16484429
    FREE Full Text
  63. 63.↵
    1. Rovira À,
    2. Auger C,
    3. Alonso J
    . Magnetic resonance monitoring of lesion evolution in multiple sclerosis. Ther Adv Neurol Disord 2013;6:298–310 doi:10.1177/1756285613484079 pmid:23997815
    CrossRefPubMed
  64. 64.↵
    1. Miller DH,
    2. Barkhof F,
    3. Nauta JP
    . Gadolinium enhancement increases the sensitivity of MRI in detecting disease activity in multiple sclerosis. Brain 1993;116:1077–94 doi:10.1093/brain/116.5.1077 pmid:8221048
    CrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    1. Erbayat Altay EE,
    2. Fisher E,
    3. Jones SE, et al
    . Reliability of classifying multiple sclerosis disease activity using magnetic resonance imaging in a multiple sclerosis clinic. JAMA Neurol 2013;70:338–44 doi:10.1001/2013.jamaneurol.211 pmid:23599930
    CrossRefPubMed
  66. 66.↵
    1. Cotton F,
    2. Weiner HL,
    3. Jolesz FA, et al
    . MRI contrast uptake in new lesions in relapsing-remitting MS followed at weekly intervals. Neurology 2003;60:640–46 doi:10.1212/01.WNL.0000046587.83503.1E pmid:12601106
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  67. 67.↵
    1. Kanda T,
    2. Fukusato T,
    3. Matsuda M, et al
    . Gadolinium-based contrast agent accumulates in the brain even in subjects without severe renal dysfunction: evaluation of autopsy brain specimens with inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy. Radiology 2015;276:228–32 doi:10.1148/radiol.2015142690 pmid:25942417
    CrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.↵
    1. Stojanov D,
    2. Aracki-Trenkic A,
    3. Benedeto-Stojanov D
    . Gadolinium deposition within the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus after repeated administrations of gadolinium-based contrast agents: current status. Neuroradiology 2016;58:433–41 doi:10.1007/s00234-016-1658-1 pmid:26873830
    CrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    Gadolinium-based contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): drug safety communication – FDA evaluating the risk of brain deposits with repeated use. July 27, 2015. https://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm456012.htm. Accessed May 9, 2016.
  70. 70.↵
    1. Stankiewicz JM,
    2. Glanz BI,
    3. Healy BC, et al
    . Brain MRI lesion load at 1.5T and 3T versus clinical status in multiple sclerosis. J Neuroimaging 2011;21:e50–e6 doi:10.1111/j.1552-6569.2009.00449.x pmid:19888926
    CrossRefPubMed
  71. 71.↵
    1. Neema M,
    2. Guss ZD,
    3. Stankiewicz JM, et al
    . Normal findings on brain fluid-attenuated inversion recovery MRI scans at 3T. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:911–16 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1514 pmid:19369605
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  72. 72.↵
    1. Lövblad KO,
    2. Anzalone N,
    3. Dörfler A, et al
    . MR imaging in multiple sclerosis: review and recommendations for current practice. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:983–89 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1906 pmid:20019103
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  73. 73.↵
    1. Uysal E,
    2. Erturk SM,
    3. Yildirim H, et al
    . Sensitivity of immediate and delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI after injection of 0.5 M and 1.0 M gadolinium chelates for detecting multiple sclerosis lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:697–702 doi:10.2214/AJR.05.2212 pmid:17312056
    CrossRefPubMed
  74. 74.↵
    1. Bakshi R,
    2. Ariyaratana S,
    3. Benedict RH, et al
    . Fluid-attenuated inversion recovery magnetic resonance imaging detects cortical and juxtacortical multiple sclerosis lesions. Arch Neurol 2001;58:742–78 doi:10.1001/archneur.58.5.742 pmid:11346369
    CrossRefPubMed
  75. 75.↵
    1. Gawne-Cain ML,
    2. O'Riordan JI,
    3. Thompson AJ, et al
    . Multiple sclerosis lesion detection in the brain: a comparison of fast fluid-attenuated inversion recovery and conventional T2-weighted dual spin echo. Neurology 1997;49:364–70 doi:10.1212/WNL.49.2.364 pmid:9270563
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  76. 76.↵
    1. Yousry TA,
    2. Filippi M,
    3. Becker C, et al
    . Comparison of MR pulse sequences in the detection of multiple sclerosis lesions. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1997;18:959–63 pmid:9159377
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  77. 77.↵
    1. Wattjes MP,
    2. Lutterbey GG,
    3. Harzheim M, et al
    . Imaging of inflammatory lesions at 3.0 Tesla in patients with clinically isolated syndromes suggestive of multiple sclerosis: a comparison of fluid-attenuated inversion recovery with T2 turbo spin-echo. Eur Radiol 2006;16:1494–500 doi:10.1007/s00330-005-0082-4 pmid:16550354
    CrossRefPubMed
  78. 78.↵
    1. Mills RJ,
    2. Young CA,
    3. Smith ETS
    . 3D MRI in multiple sclerosis: a study of three sequences at 3 T. Br J Radiol 2007;80:307–20 doi:10.1259/bjr/52670770 pmid:17005516
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  79. 79.↵
    1. Moraal B,
    2. Roosendaal SD,
    3. Pouwels PJ, et al
    . Multi-contrast, isotropic, single-slab 3D MR imaging in multiple sclerosis. Eur Radiol 2008;18:2311–20 doi:10.1007/s00330-008-1009-7 pmid:18509658
    CrossRefPubMed
  80. 80.↵
    1. Daams M,
    2. Geurts JJ,
    3. Barkhof F
    . Cortical imaging in multiple sclerosis: recent findings and ‘grand challenges.’ Curr Opin Neurol 2013;26:345–52 doi:10.1097/WCO.0b013e328362a864 pmid:23812306
    CrossRefPubMed
  81. 81.↵
    1. Kutzelnigg A,
    2. Lucchinetti CF,
    3. Stadelmann C, et al
    . Cortical demyelination and diffuse white matter injury in multiple sclerosis. Brain 2005;128(pt 11):2705–12 doi:10.1093/brain/awh641 pmid:16230320
    CrossRefPubMed
  82. 82.↵
    1. Fisniku LK,
    2. Chard DT,
    3. Jackson JS, et al
    . Gray matter atrophy is related to long-term disability in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 2008;64:247–54 doi:10.1002/ana.21423 pmid:18570297
    CrossRefPubMed
  83. 83.↵
    1. Morgen K,
    2. Sammer G,
    3. Courtney SM, et al
    . Evidence for a direct association between cortical atrophy and cognitive impairment in relapsing–remitting MS. Neuroimage 2006;30:891–98 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.10.032 pmid:16360321
    CrossRefPubMed
  84. 84.↵
    1. Seewann AM,
    2. Kooi EJ,
    3. Roosendaal SD, et al
    . Postmortem verification of MS cortical lesion detection with 3D DIR. Neurology 2012;78:302–08 doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e31824528a0 pmid:22218278
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  85. 85.↵
    1. Peterson JW,
    2. Bö L,
    3. Mörk S, et al
    . Transected neurites, apoptotic neurons, and reduced inflammation in cortical multiple sclerosis lesions. Ann Neurol 2001;50:389–400 doi:10.1002/ana.1123 pmid:11558796
    CrossRefPubMed
  86. 86.↵
    1. Kilsdonk ID,
    2. Jonkman LE,
    3. Klaver R, et al
    . Increased cortical grey matter lesion detection in multiple sclerosis with 7 T MRI: a post-mortem verification study. Brain 2016;139(pt 5):1472–81 doi:10.1093/brain/aww037 pmid:26956422
    CrossRefPubMed
  87. 87.↵
    1. Nelson F,
    2. Poonawalla AH,
    3. Hou P, et al
    . Improved identification of intracortical lesions in multiple sclerosis with phase-sensitive inversion recovery in combination with fast double inversion recovery MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:1645–49 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A0645 pmid:17885241
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  88. 88.↵
    1. Wattjes MP,
    2. Lutterbey GG,
    3. Gieseke J, et al
    . Double inversion recovery brain imaging at 3T: diagnostic value in the detection of multiple sclerosis lesions. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:54–59 pmid:17213424
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  89. 89.↵
    1. Sethi V,
    2. Yousry TA,
    3. Muhlert N, et al
    . Improved detection of cortical MS lesions with phase-sensitive inversion recovery MRI. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2012;83:877–82 doi:10.1136/jnnp-2012-303023 pmid:22807559
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  90. 90.↵
    1. Lycklama G,
    2. Thompson A,
    3. Filippi M, et al
    . Spinal-cord MRI in multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol 2003;2:555–62 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(03)00504-0 pmid:12941578
    CrossRefPubMed
  91. 91.↵
    1. Curtin AJ,
    2. Chakeres DW,
    3. Bulas R, et al
    . MR imaging artifacts of the axial internal anatomy of the cervical spinal cord. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1989;152:835–42 doi:10.2214/ajr.152.4.835 pmid:2466397
    CrossRefPubMed
  92. 92.↵
    1. Bergers E,
    2. Bot JC,
    3. van der Valk VP, et al
    . Diffuse signal abnormalities in the spinal cord in multiple sclerosis: direct postmortem in situ magnetic resonance imaging correlated with in vitro high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging and histopathology. Ann Neurol 2002;51:652–56 doi:10.1002/ana.10170 pmid:12112117
    CrossRefPubMed
  93. 93.↵
    1. Bergers E,
    2. Bot JC,
    3. De Groot CJ, et al
    . Axonal damage in the spinal cord of MS patients occurs largely independent of T2 MRI lesions. Neurology 2002;59:1766–71 doi:10.1212/01.WNL.0000036566.00866.26 pmid:12473766
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  94. 94.↵
    1. Stankiewicz JM,
    2. Neema M,
    3. Alsop DC, et al
    . Spinal cord lesions and clinical status in multiple sclerosis: a 1.5 T and 3 T MRI study. J Neurol Sci 2009;279:99–105 doi:10.1016/j.jns.2008.11.009 pmid:19178916
    CrossRefPubMed
  95. 95.↵
    1. Lukas C,
    2. Sombekke MH,
    3. Bellenberg B, et al
    . Relevance of spinal cord abnormalities to clinical disability in multiple sclerosis: MR imaging findings in a large cohort of patients. Radiology 2013;269:542–52 doi:10.1148/radiol.13122566 pmid:23737540
    CrossRefPubMed
  96. 96.↵
    1. Lycklama à Nijeholt GJ,
    2. Barkhof F,
    3. Castelijns JA, et al
    . Comparison of two MR sequences for the detection of multiple sclerosis lesions in the spinal cord. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1996;17:1533–38 pmid:8883653
    Abstract
  97. 97.↵
    1. Kidd D,
    2. Thorpe JW,
    3. Thompson AJ, et al
    . Spinal cord MRI using multi-array coils and fast spin echo, II: findings in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1993;43:2632–37 doi:10.1212/WNL.43.12.2632 pmid:8255468
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  98. 98.↵
    1. Liu C,
    2. Edwards S,
    3. Gong Q, et al
    . Three dimensional MRI estimates of brain and spinal cord atrophy in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1999;66:323–30 doi:10.1136/jnnp.66.3.323 pmid:10084530
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  99. 99.↵
    1. Bakshi R,
    2. Dandamudi VS,
    3. Neema M, et al
    . Measurement of brain and spinal cord atrophy by magnetic resonance imaging as a tool to monitor multiple sclerosis. J Neuroimaging 2005;15(4 suppl):30S–45S doi:10.1177/1051228405283901 pmid:16385017
    CrossRefPubMed
  100. 100.↵
    1. Rashid W,
    2. Davies GR,
    3. Chard DT, et al
    . Increasing cord atrophy in early relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a 3-year study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2006;77:51–55 doi:10.1136/jnnp.2005.068338 pmid:16361592
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  101. 101.↵
    1. Furby J,
    2. Hayton T,
    3. Anderson V, et al
    . Magnetic resonance imaging measures of brain and spinal cord atrophy correlate with clinical impairment in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2008;14:1068–75 doi:10.1177/1352458508093617 pmid:18632782
    CrossRefPubMed
  102. 102.↵
    1. Klawiter EC
    . Current and new directions in MRI in multiple sclerosis. Continuum (Minneap Minn) 2013;19(4 Multiple Sclerosis):1058–73 doi:10.1212/01.CON.0000433283.00221.37 pmid:23917101
    CrossRefPubMed
  103. 103.↵
    1. Silver NC,
    2. Good CD,
    3. Sormani MP, et al
    . A modified protocol to improve the detection of enhancing brain and spinal cord lesions in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol 2001;248:215–24 doi:10.1007/s004150170229 pmid:11355156
    CrossRefPubMed
  104. 104.↵
    1. Thorpe JW,
    2. Kidd DM,
    3. Moseley IF, et al
    . Serial gadolinium-enhanced MRI of the brain and spinal cord in early relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1996;46:373–78 doi:10.1212/WNL.46.2.373 pmid:8614497
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  105. 105.↵
    1. Cook SD,
    2. Dhib-Jalbut S,
    3. Dowling P, et al
    . Use of magnetic resonance imaging as well as clinical disease activity in the clinical classification of multiple sclerosis and assessment of its course: a report from an international CMSC Consensus Conference, March 5–7, 2010. Int J MS Care 2012;14:105–14 doi:10.7224/1537-2073-14.3.105 pmid:24453741
    CrossRefPubMed
  106. 106.↵
    1. Verhey LH,
    2. Narayanan S,
    3. Banwell B
    . Standardized magnetic resonance imaging acquisition and reporting in pediatric multiple sclerosis. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2013;23:217–26.e7 doi:10.1016/j.nic.2012.12.003 pmid:23608686
    CrossRefPubMed
  107. 107.↵
    1. Rommer PS,
    2. Zettl UK,
    3. Kieseier B, et al
    . Requirement for safety monitoring for approved multiple sclerosis therapies: an overview. Clin Exp Immunol 2014;175:397–407 doi:10.1111/cei.12206 pmid:24102425
    CrossRefPubMed
  108. 108.↵
    1. Weber MS,
    2. Menge T,
    3. Lehmann-Horn K, et al
    . Current treatment strategies for multiple sclerosis: efficacy versus neurological adverse effects. Curr Pharm Des 2012;18:209–19 doi:10.2174/138161212799040501 pmid:22229582
    CrossRefPubMed
  109. 109.↵
    1. Wattjes MP,
    2. Steenwijk MD,
    3. Stangel M
    . MRI in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple sclerosis: an update. Clin Neuroradiol 2015;25(suppl 2):157–65 doi:10.1007/s00062-015-0430-y pmid:26198879
    CrossRefPubMed
  • © 2017 by American Journal of Neuroradiology
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology: 38 (9)
American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 38, Issue 9
1 Sep 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Current and Emerging Therapies in Multiple Sclerosis: Implications for the Radiologist, Part 1—Mechanisms, Efficacy, and Safety
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Current and Emerging Therapies in Multiple Sclerosis: Implications for the Radiologist, Part 1—Mechanisms, Efficacy, and Safety
C. McNamara, G. Sugrue, B. Murray, P.J. MacMahon
American Journal of Neuroradiology Sep 2017, 38 (9) 1664-1671; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A5147

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Current and Emerging Therapies in Multiple Sclerosis: Implications for the Radiologist, Part 1—Mechanisms, Efficacy, and Safety
C. McNamara, G. Sugrue, B. Murray, P.J. MacMahon
American Journal of Neuroradiology Sep 2017, 38 (9) 1664-1671; DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A5147
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • ABBREVIATIONS:
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Improved Detection of New MS Lesions during Follow-Up Using an Automated MR Coregistration-Fusion Method
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • Diffuse Calvarial Hyperostosis and Spontaneous Intracranial Hypotension: A Case-Control Study
  • Alterations of Microstructure and Sodium Homeostasis in Fast Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Progressors: A Brain DTI and Sodium MRI Study
  • Assessment of Heating on Titanium Alloy Cerebral Aneurysm Clips during 7T MRI
Show more ADULT BRAIN

Similar Articles

Advertisement

News and Updates

  • Lucien Levy Best Research Article Award
  • Thanks to our 2021 Distinguished Reviewers
  • Press Releases

Resources

  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • How to Participate in a Tweet Chat
  • AJNR Podcast Archive
  • Ideas for Publicizing Your Research
  • Librarian Resources
  • Terms and Conditions

Opportunities

  • Share Your Art in Perspectives
  • Get Peer Review Credit from Publons
  • Moderate a Tweet Chat

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Neurographics
  • ASNR Annual Meeting
  • Fellowship Portal
  • Position Statements

© 2022 by the American Society of Neuroradiology | Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire